We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 333

CouldTrack B scheduling in EDTX benefit patent trolls?

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 3 2014

Last week, Chief Judge Leonard Davis of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) issued an Order (here) creating a second, Track B for patent cases. Track

Generic pharma leverages PTAB

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 20 2014

Since Post Grant Review (PGR) is designed to challenge patents on 112 and 101 grounds not available in Inter Partes Review (IPR), it is often assumed

Patent reissue as an alternative to PTAB amendment practice

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 8 2014

As discussed previously, patent owners continue to struggle with the motion-based amendment requirements of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board

Amendment missteps before the PTAB

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 20 2014

As final written decisions in Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings begin to issue from the USPTO’s Patent Trial &

2014 update on PTAB trial statistics

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 17 2014

Last week, the USPTO issued the official talliesprogress statistics for Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) and the Covered Business

Prosecution history before the PTAB.your mileage may vary

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2014

Whether in a new patent application or in an issued patent being subject to a post grant review proceeding, the USPTO utilizes a Broadest Reasonable

Senate poised to quickly conclude patent reform efforts

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 10 2014

Last Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded a round of additional staff hearings on pending Senate Bills S.1720 (Leahy) entitled Patent

Can a favorable patent reexamination record undo a markman order?

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 18 2011

It is well established that the USPTO utilizes different standards of evidence and claim interpretation in patent reexamination

Limited patent reexamination choices for late stage litigants

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 17 2011

In the case of Inventio AG v. Otis Elevator Co. (SDNY), the Court found that entry of a permanent injunction was against public interest where a pending ex parte patent reexamination of the USPTO seemingly demonstrated the potential invalidity of the subject patent

The rise of the PTAB troll

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 17 2013

Are NPE Judgments Under Attack? The primary business distinctions between the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings and traditional